Panama Papers

[Loz]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Channel 4 also found links to Camerons father and another tax haven investment yesterday, so this is

> going to carry on for Cameron. And Nigel Farage has been exposed too as having set up an account

> in a tax haven - for all his pretence at being a common man, he is a city boy to the end.

I alluded to this up at the start of the thread, but not to forget the Guardian here. They're well known for using offshore tax havens, most notably to avoid a large tax bill for the sale of their stake in Autotrader.

[Blah Blah]

I didn't say there weren't working class MPs ????. If you read what I wrote properly, I said that most MPs come from affluence or privilege, but I did not say all.

[Earl Aelfheah]

The fact is that Cameron rallied against tax avoidance. He called it immoral and he called for transparency in people's tax affairs whilst being rather evasive about his own. He has been hoist by his own petard.

[Earl Aelfheah]

If Corbyn had been found to have shares in an offshore company I suspect many of those claiming it's not a story would be screaming from the lampposts for his head (so would I btw). Stop being dogmatically partisan, it's self evidently a legitimate story.

[DulwichFox]

Just as the Jimmy Saville investigations led to further cases of sexual abuse.....

.. I think the proverbial stuff hitting the fan here will open the door to further cases of financial abuse....

Both brought about by 'Privilage' .. Dangerous thing, Privilage.

DulwichFox

[Seabag]

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Both brought about by 'Privilage' .. Dangerous

> thing, Privilage.

>

> DulwichFox

No, it was bought about by opportunity, and opportunity isn't in itself a bad thing. But if you're talking morals vs cash, then morals often get sidelined

The silly 'privilege' nonsense is classist clap trap, often bandied around by those with a chip on thier shoulder

Get over it, it's tedious

[uncleglen]

Blah Blah- you are wrong when you say that in their day grammar schools were likened to public schools because when grammar schools were ubiquitous, they served the working classes very well indeed, (ALL my teachers at grammar school were from Welsh mining villages e.g.) It is now that grammar schools- the few that are left- have the status of public school and it was a very short-sighted public school educated Labour minister that set that particular ball rolling to the detriment of the WHOLE of the working class, and everyone else, except for public school and foreign educated people. And as for industry, raw materials, like coal, is a finite resource, oil is a finite resource, iron ore is a finite resource... and they have become non-viable as industries. Things change. The Labour party has done very well at preventing the ordinary man from bettering himself and therefore keeping him in the pocket of Labour, and keeping his vote.

[????]

Middle class lefties hate the working class and any sign of not knowing their place. Any aspiration and they are spivs or class traitors. Priveliged middle class twats squashing any uppiness- laughably the middle class left are now trying to claim victim hood in everything themselves middle class guilt now being replaced by false victim hood and social media 'activism"

[Loz]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The fact is that Cameron rallied against tax avoidance. He called it immoral and he called for

> transparency in people's tax affairs whilst being rather evasive about his own.

So, just like the Guardian, then. Only their tax avoidance was in the hundreds of millions, rather than thousands.

[Earl Aelfheah]

So that makes both OK? What's your point?

[Loz]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So that makes both OK?

No. I'm wondering how one of them seems to be inquisitor-in-chief.

[Earl Aelfheah]

One of them is in the journalism business.

[Earl Aelfheah]

It's kind of irrelevant to the discussion about Cameron though.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Also, there are plenty of other media outlets running with the story

[LondonMix]

Yeah, but Cameron hasn't evaded or avoided any taxes. I'm not even a Tory voter but he hasn't actually done anything wrong. If you get something in a will and then liquidate it without obtaining any tax advantage what exactly is the scandal? I'm asking this as a genuine question. I get he didn't handle to question about it well- is that the story . scandal?

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The fact is that Cameron rallied against tax

> avoidance. He called it immoral and he called for

> transparency in people's tax affairs whilst being

> rather evasive about his own. He has been hoist by

> his own petard.

[Blah Blah]

But the problem with Cameron is that he has inhertied vast wealth (none of which he has worked for) whilst telling the country that if they end up unemployed they are scroungers. It's about principle - and what this tax thing does is show up Camerons wealth, and therefore hypocrasy. It's not really about tax at all. That's not where the damage is really done.

If you've never lived outside of the home counties or SE, you may have no idea of the real gap of inequality. Perception is definitely regional. Knowing that Cameron is wealthy is different to seeing amounts gifted to him, and yes, that might lead to a politics of envy, but you can't criticise the ordinary person struggling to make ends meet, whose life chances are limited, for wondering why Cameron gets to enjoy the good fortune of half a million quid from his parents.

[LondonMix]

Wait, so now the problem is simply that Cameron was born wealthy? Is that new news? Does that automatically disqualify people from either party from developing social policy.

If you don't agree with Cameron's policies just debate the merits of the policies. If you are right, that argument should be good enough.

[Seabag]

So what's the headline ?

OLD ETONIAN INHERITS HALF A MILLION

Not exactly a 'vast wealth' is it

[Blah Blah]

Sigh Londonmix. I really do wish people would stop putting words into people's mouths.

I was making the point that to an ordinary person, 'wealthy' is often an abstract thing - whereas once you start assigning figures to that wealth, it becomes less abstract. I thought that was clear.

But just on the wealthy. 78% of MPs are millioniares so yes, I would argue that it skews parliament away from the interests of ordinary people. You only have to listen to the crap that comes out of Cameron and Osborne's (and formerly Ian Duncan Smith's) mouths to know that they are hardly the bringers of fair social policy. And when a disproportionate amount of cabinet minsters went to the same handful of top public schools, which all happen to be boys schools btw, it can be argued there is very much fundamentally wrong with parliament and it's overwhelming links to privilege and wealth.

Half a million to most working people is a huge amount Seabag - so again you are missing my former point on the abstraction of wealth.

[Blah Blah]

Here's another example of the abstraction of wealth. The average salary is ?27.5k but 70% of the workforce don't earn it and 50% earn nowhere near it. So when government put average figures on starter homes, they take the average salary as proof that people will be able to afford these homes. They completely ignore that most people don't earn that wage. In every area outside of London and the home counties, the real average salary is around a third less. It DOES matter that we have MPs who have no concept of living on an ordinary wage when there are so many of them. It's why we end up with ideological models that don't work from Osborne and Cameron. They ignore the advice of on the ground experts, which is why many of their bills (poorly thought out and formed without any impact research) are being clobbered by the House of Lords.

[Jah Lush]

[LondonMix]

Okay, but I'm still not sure how you are connecting this general idea (that MPs due to wealth are disconnected from the troubles of ordinary people) with the supposed scandal at hand. Are you simply moving on and talking about something else now?

Also, as you acknowledge most MPs are wealthy so if this is a problem its in no way unique to Cameron.

I simply don't get the argument about why what's happened is a scandal. I get that some voters don't agree with Cameron's policies and might think his background influences the policies they don't like but that was almost certainly the way they felt before learning his father left him an offshore vehicle in his will that he liquidated without obtaining any tax benefits.

People making a meal of this look disingenuous at best. Calls for resignation for having been left something in a will (but not doing anything wrong) are preposterous.

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Here's another example of the abstraction of

> wealth. The average salary is ?27.5k but 70% of

> the workforce don't earn it and 50% earn nowhere

> near it. So when government put average figures on

> starter homes, they take the average salary as

> proof that people will be able to afford these

> homes. They completely ignore that most people

> don't earn that wage. In every area outside of

> London and the home counties, the real average

> salary is around a third less. It DOES matter that

> we have MPs who have no concept of living on an

> ordinary wage when there are so many of them. It's

> why we end up with ideological models that don't

> work from Osborne and Cameron. They ignore the

> advice of on the ground experts, which is why many

> of their bills (poorly thought out and formed

> without any impact research) are being clobbered

> by the House of Lords.

[Jeremy]

I'm not sure that privileged backgrounds and public school are at the heart of the matter. It's not that Cameron/Osborne don't realise the amounts people earn, or the struggles they face. It's more a matter of ideology.

But as LM says... not sure how this is related to the current scandal. And I'm not actually sure what Cameron is supposed to be personally guilty of here.

[*Bob*]

How much money there is - or how it has been passed on - is a red herring. Skipping IHT by way of gifting is hardly divine knowledge available only to the Illuminati these days. Half an hour of googling will tell you all you need to know. It's harder to set-up an XBox.

The issue SURELY is how the money (or at least some of it) was made in the first place. Cam's father made money from helping other people evade tax - and these ill-gotten gains went on to directly benefit someone who sits as head of a government who pontificates on everybody else playing by the taxation rules.

Besides passing cash on while bypassing IHT (as I say, 'whatever') - a massive chunk of it also paid for his son's very privileged education. Would his son have made it to PM had he been Dave from Harris Peckham? Like Bollocks would he! Anyone who can't see how this generally might have an Air Of Stink to millions of people up and down the land must have a serious lack of braincells, regardless of whether Dave himself didn't actually do anything wrong guv'.

The current hoo-hah is ridiculous. It's like someone inheriting a load of dosh from their father who made his money from helping others to rob banks - and everyone arguing about whether the son should have paid IHT on the inheritance or not.

[miga]

I think it goes further - I think the hunt of Cameron over (essentially) his background might even make him more palatable to certain voters. I might be reaching, but given the well documented erosion of middle class comfort the fact he's being hounded for something his dad left him could actually resonate with people who feel like they've been squeezed out of various comforts.

But other than that, it's a logical fallacy to use his family or background to judge his policies by, as stated multiple times on this thread.